Jump to content

Female model representation in Age of Sigmar


Enoby

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, silverstu said:

I really think why there hasn't been as much female representation is probably for some factions it hasn't been asked ="what would females in these societies do? How would they appear on the battlefield ?".

I think the underlying issue here is deeper, and while obvious, isn't at the front of everyone's mind.

It speaks highly to the quality of the IP and our level of engagement to it.  And it sounds stupid to say it out loud, but sometimes we need to say it out loud just to refresh it in our minds.

WARHAMMER ISN'T REAL.

What our lore books are doing isn't converting a real existing society into tabletop gaming terms.  They are creating from zero a tabletop game and going back from there to making a setting that supports the game .

So the question ends up often going backwards, because we are so immersed in the lore that it feels like a real thing, and we are handcuffed to representing only what the real setting dictates.  The question doesn't have to be "what would females in those societies do?", it can and should be "if we want the tabletop gaming outcome to be X, how should the societies be structured in the lore to support that?"

Throwing up our hands and saying "we'd love to have lady Orruks, but there just aren't any lady Orruks in the lore" is not the answer.  The answer is to put lady Orruks in the lore- the lore is there to support the outcomes we want, not to prevent them.

Edited by amysrevenge
  • Like 15
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

I think the underlying issue here is deeper, and while obvious, isn't at the front of everyone's mind.

It speaks highly to the quality of the IP and our level of engagement to it.  And it sounds stupid to say it out loud, but sometimes we need to say it out loud just to refresh it in our minds.

WARHAMMER ISN'T REAL.

What our lore books are doing isn't converting a real existing society into tabletop gaming terms.  They are creating from zero a tabletop game and going back from there to making a setting that supports the game .

So the question ends up often going backwards, because we are so immersed in the lore that it feels like a real thing, and we are handcuffed to representing only what the real setting dictates.  The question doesn't have to be "what would females in those societies do?", it can and should be "if we want the tabletop gaming outcome to be X, how should the societies be structured in the lore to support that?"

Throwing up our hands and saying "we'd love to have lady Orruks, but there just aren't any lady Orruks in the lore" is not the answer.  The answer is to put lady Orruks in the lore- the lore is there to support the outcomes we want, not to prevent them.

100%, part of the appeal of AoS in the first place is having the freedom to create your own lore and forge your narrative. So if I want my female Orruks, grots, ogors, beasts of chaos or whatever, I'm going to make them.

IMG_20200707_110452.jpg

  • Like 4
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Throwing up our hands and saying "we'd love to have lady Orruks, but there just aren't any lady Orruks in the lore" is not the answer.  The answer is to put lady Orruks in the lore- the lore is there to support the outcomes we want, not to prevent them.

At the same time Lore will establish limits, tropes, concepts and themes. Some elements are vague and not well looked into which leaves them ripe for being adapted, others are established themes and concepts. If you mess your own lore up too much it can actually lose appeal. Consider the risky concept of female space marines. All lore to date states that it is impossible; there is 30 years of lore, themes, stories, ideas and preconceptions built around that concept. Lore can change, but in changing it changes its concept. 

Sometimes if you change too many things you might appeal to a wider selection of potential groups; but at the same time you can lose the power of the lore to captivate your audience. Because if anything is possible then armies start to lose individuality. It's somewhat akin to if you just say "Well use any models you want, you don't have to use armies of a set type at all". Yes some love it; yes it lets you have freedom; but at the same time it actually results in less individuality; less identity etc... for those forces. 

 

Also don't forget your models have always been your models. Female Orruks; female space marines etc.. might not be "legit in lore" but nothing has ever stopped gamers doing it for themselves. Indeed with 3D printing and the internet opening up the potential for more smaller alternative parts sellers to have a viable market, you have a wealth of choices of conversion parts open to you to help create your own ideas. The lore itself doesn't always have to facilitate every option; players can craft their own and don't need "GW's Permission" to do so*

 

So yes lore is a tool that we can manipulate and change and evolve and adapt to suit purpose; but at the same time it has to have some limits on how much you change and adapt it; the speed and the nature of the adaptation. Otherwise you can lose its own power and if there's one thing that Battletomes and Black Library and the Big Rulebook shows its that people do like their lore.

 

*save to potentially compete with those models at a GW store/sponsored event. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Overread said:

At the same time Lore will establish limits, tropes, concepts and themes. Some elements are vague and not well looked into which leaves them ripe for being adapted, others are established themes and concepts. If you mess your own lore up too much it can actually lose appeal. Consider the risky concept of female space marines. All lore to date states that it is impossible; there is 30 years of lore, themes, stories, ideas and preconceptions built around that concept. Lore can change, but in changing it changes its concept. 

Sometimes if you change too many things you might appeal to a wider selection of potential groups; but at the same time you can lose the power of the lore to captivate your audience. Because if anything is possible then armies start to lose individuality. It's somewhat akin to if you just say "Well use any models you want, you don't have to use armies of a set type at all". Yes some love it; yes it lets you have freedom; but at the same time it actually results in less individuality; less identity etc... for those forces. 

 

Also don't forget your models have always been your models. Female Orruks; female space marines etc.. might not be "legit in lore" but nothing has ever stopped gamers doing it for themselves. Indeed with 3D printing and the internet opening up the potential for more smaller alternative parts sellers to have a viable market, you have a wealth of choices of conversion parts open to you to help create your own ideas. The lore itself doesn't always have to facilitate every option; players can craft their own and don't need "GW's Permission" to do so*

 

So yes lore is a tool that we can manipulate and change and evolve and adapt to suit purpose; but at the same time it has to have some limits on how much you change and adapt it; the speed and the nature of the adaptation. Otherwise you can lose its own power and if there's one thing that Battletomes and Black Library and the Big Rulebook shows its that people do like their lore.

 

*save to potentially compete with those models at a GW store/sponsored event. 

I would agree here, to an extent. Certainly, it would be considered poor writing for GW to say "okay Stormcast are actually imaginary now; it's just the orks believe in something strong enough to fight them so Stormcast appeared" as it would change a massive part of their lore and could well put many people off them who enjoyed their core concept. In a real example, Primaris marines are criticised for being added out of nowhere and having technological advancement in the setting, and the scattering/origins of the primarchs being changed to include Erda is seen as an out of nowhere retcon by some. Whether you agree with these criticisms or not, certainly some fans have problems with them and they could be argued to weaken the lore.

My issue comes with the idea that adding women to an army should be some colossal change in a fantasy game. As shown in one of my previous posts, there are no female space marines for a purely financial reason - the lore came after a financial decision. There is nothing core to the original identification of space marines that required them to be male, and so it is strange just how upset some people (not saying you, just to be clear!) get at the very idea of them compared to other lore changes. I remember someone in my local GW saying that they'd quit the game if they made female space marines, which just sounds crazy - it's fine not to like the idea, but a little strange to happily throw away £1000s in models because of a relatively minor lore change. 

 I've been quite rambley, so I'll try concisely sum up my point. I don't understand why adding women to an army is seen as a radical change, or why it draws such annoyance from certain fans. 

If you retconned the space marines to be eldar, it would have massive impacts on the lore. If you changed some of them to women, would it really have that much of an impact on the story?

You're very correct in saying that tropes, themes, and concepts exist, and should be kept mostly consistent for a rich story, but I don't understand why so many of these tropes should exclude a particular type of person. I suppose I would ask the question "if keeping the fantasy trope consistent requires (partially or fully) excluding or alienating a real life group of people, is it worth keeping?"

  • Like 9
  • LOVE IT! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. The introduction of Primaris Space Marines was the perfect opportunity for GW to introduce canon female space marines.

You have the situation where they were already committed to making a big change to the model range, and justifying it with new canon. At that point why not say, In addition to making new, even more awesome space marines, we also decided that no talented space warrior should be exempt from potentially becoming a space marine, so there are ladies now. I'm sure it would have annoyed some people, but they are the people I tend not to mind annoying, so I see it as a missed opportunity.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Enoby said:

If you changed some of them to women, would it really have that much of an impact on the story?

Yes, space marines would not have been so messed up if there were females from the very beginning. XD

But seriously you can not deny some people just like space marines for their, well I don’t know if these terms are suitable here, their “stupidity” and misery.

You really can’t blame a setting whose very major themes are just stupidity and backwardness, can you?

Edited by Whitefang
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Whitefang said:

Yes, space marines would not be so messed up if there were females from the very beginning. XD

But seriously you can not deny some people just like space marines for their, well I don’t know if these terms are suitable here, their “stupidity” and misery.

You really can’t blame a setting whose very major themes are just stupidity and backwardness, can you?

I can definitely see why people like all male space marines :) I suppose I would mind much less if they were all male for the same reason that Sisters of Battle are all female - because the Imperium is ruled by stupid burocracy (at least then you could have a female space marine as a rebel chapter). I suppose my main concern is just how adamant people are about all male space marines when it's not a massive lore change, and said lore change could make the entire game more inviting for a lot of people. If a person likes all male space marines, they can make a chapter or company that "sticks to the old ways". 

If SM were all male because of stupidity and backwardsness (like the reason SoB are all female), I'd be more okay with that as it'd say something about the Imperium and be much less exclusive (for reasons mentioned before); if the IoM had the law "the Emperor's angels must be made in His image" and so all are male, for example. But as the lore is "it's scientifically impossible" I find that quite a weak reason as it says nothing about the setting on an artistic level (no commentary of the society, I mean), the science is totally made up and nonsensical (so can be changed and make just as much sense), and the faction with the lion's share of models and releases is all male. As it stands now, the lore can be changed without a retcon by just saying "Cawl did a thing and it worked", and by the current standards of the lore (e.g. primaris marines) this would be lore friendly and not contradicting the Imperium's "ethics" (as they don't seem to be sexist, despite all of their other issues) :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Overread said:

Sometimes if you change too many things you might appeal to a wider selection of potential groups; but at the same time you can lose the power of the lore to captivate your audience. Because if anything is possible then armies start to lose individuality. It's somewhat akin to if you just say "Well use any models you want, you don't have to use armies of a set type at all". Yes some love it; yes it lets you have freedom; but at the same time it actually results in less individuality; less identity etc... for those forces. 

I've heard variations on this argument before. Some variation on not wanting to alienate current customers, or a company making less money by appealing more weakly to a larger audience or by.

I don't think it holds much water. Firstly, I am not such a fragile flower that I'd suddenly hate the game if there were a female orruk or indeed female space Marines. Indeed, in contrast, I think many male players would enjoy that as added variety to their models. 

There is also the bigger question of what would make for a better hobby overall? I'd love more hobby friends and opponents in general and would be equally happy with some lady hobby friends and opponents. 

As mentioned, the lore is merely a tool to make for a good game and situation. If there were a compelling reason to have specifically gendered army's, I'm open to it, but there is so much possibility in the mortal realms sticking to gendered army linrs (which they've already done a ton of) actually feels like a waste of potential. 

Seems like more female minis and maybe also more female players is win-win-win.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

I think the underlying issue here is deeper, and while obvious, isn't at the front of everyone's mind.

It speaks highly to the quality of the IP and our level of engagement to it.  And it sounds stupid to say it out loud, but sometimes we need to say it out loud just to refresh it in our minds.

WARHAMMER ISN'T REAL.

What our lore books are doing isn't converting a real existing society into tabletop gaming terms.  They are creating from zero a tabletop game and going back from there to making a setting that supports the game .

So the question ends up often going backwards, because we are so immersed in the lore that it feels like a real thing, and we are handcuffed to representing only what the real setting dictates.  The question doesn't have to be "what would females in those societies do?", it can and should be "if we want the tabletop gaming outcome to be X, how should the societies be structured in the lore to support that?"

Throwing up our hands and saying "we'd love to have lady Orruks, but there just aren't any lady Orruks in the lore" is not the answer.  The answer is to put lady Orruks in the lore- the lore is there to support the outcomes we want, not to prevent them.

Cant like this enough.

Also there are/were already multiple examples of Lore which made no sense whatever. The Dark Elves were always the pinnacle of this, a society of sociopaths is an oxymoron. The Lore for them was laughable. They all hate each other, and everyone else. There was literally no explanation as to why they went from plotting against and killing each other  to buddying up at army time. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I feel like AoS is doing much better at female representation than 40K is. I'd kind of like to do a female centric Genestealer Cults army, but there just aren't enough models to do the conversions in a believable manner. There are a few ladies in the range, and I could maybe try to convert necromunder modles, btu I can't quite figure out how to make it work... and that's one of the 40K armies that actually has women in it at all!

At least with my fantasy armies, there are both a variety of mostly aelven armies with plenty of female options, and for human armies there are various third party minis like the frost grave soldiers who fit in quite well. I want to get some female dwarves at some point when I next do something with that army and while GW don't offer any, its not as though I'll be struggling to find options.

40K, and a few AoS armies are just a bit too specific though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statistics demonstrate a far higher proportion of female leaders in AoS than pretty much any real army in history

I can hear people now getting  ready to tell me "IT'S FANTASY" and yes it is but all fantasy has reference points in the real world. That's what gives fantasy a feeling of reality.  All of our real world reference points for combat are male because almost all real world combat has been done by males.  Which is not to say that you can't have female combatants in a fantasy game, you can have as many as you like, it's only the idea that you must have more women that I take objection to, given that female combatants are actually grossly overrepesented in AoS rather than underrepresented. 

The other argument that's made here for increasing the over-representation of women is that some people need their gaming pieces to be the same sex as them or they won't want to play with them. As a male playing a nearly all-female CoS army I can't say I've ever felt alienated and excluded by my gaming pieces not having enough penises and it's hard not to see this need as little more than chauvinism. 

So yeah, more female models would be nice, more models are always nice, but the idea that it is some sort of fault or deficit of a game not to have parity doesn't make sense and the idea that people are being cruelly excluded by the gender of their gaming pieces holds no weight for me. 

Edited by Orsino
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Orsino said:

he idea that people are being cruelly excluded by the gender of their gaming pieces holds no weight for me. 

You can make any argument sound stupid if you take it to extremes. 

Nobody, in this thread at least nor have I seen it anywhere else, has argued that women are cruelly excluded. That's miles from the argument that more female inclusion in the models could lead to more female inclusion in the community. (and i'll happily follow that up with my favourite emoji ;))

 💁‍♀️ #hairflip

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statistics demonstrate a far higher proportion of lizard leaders in AoS than pretty much any real army in history

I can hear people now getting ready to tell me "IT'S FANTASY" and yes it is but all fantasy has reference points in the real world. That's what gives fantasy a feeling of reality. All of our real world reference points for combat are human because almost all real world combat has been done by humans. Which is not to say that you can't have lizard combatants in a fantasy game, you can have as many as you like, it's only the idea that you must have more lizards that I take objection to, given that lizard combatants are actually grossly overrepesented in AoS rather than underrepresented. 

The other argument that's made here for increasing the over-representation of lizards is that some people need their gaming pieces to be the same species as them or they won't want to play with them. As a human playing a nearly all-lizard Seraphon army I can't say I've ever felt alienated and excluded by my gaming pieces not having enough hot blood and it's hard not to see this need as little more than reptileism. 

So yeah, more lizard models would be nice, more models are always nice, but the idea that it is some sort of fault or deficit of a game not to have parity doesn't make sense and the idea that creatures are being cruelly excluded by the species of their gaming pieces holds no weight for me. 

Edited by Mattrulesok
  • Like 2
  • Haha 20
  • LOVE IT! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kramer said:

You can make any argument sound stupid if you take it to extremes. 

Nobody, in this thread at least nor have I seen it anywhere else, has argued that women are cruelly excluded. That's miles from the argument that more female inclusion in the models could lead to more female inclusion in the community. (and i'll happily follow that up with my favourite emoji ;))

 💁‍♀️ #hairflip

The argument that women are being excluded has been made several times, including on this very page. 

And the idea that we must get more women playing AoS makes no sense to me. It's a niche hobby, not a proselytizing cult. People can play or not play and if it doesn't appeal then that's fine.  I've worked in quite a few hospitals that had weekly knitting groups and would go and join in when I had the time. I was invariably the only man present. No one in a knitting circle wastes a moment of their time worrying that there aren't enough men knitting or wondering what they can do to bring in more men. Men were welcome to join in but any man who turned up and declared that there should be more masculine knitting patterns to appeal to them would have rightfully been met with bewilderment. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Female combatants are actually grossly overrepesented in AoS rather than underrepresented. 

No they arent. 

History has *zero bearing* on AOS besides the fact that it is the only means by which we as humans can conceive of a plausible reality not entirely contemporary to our own. 

To look at AOS and say that the reference points in the real world which are represented are remotiey significant compared to the overwhelming majority of a universe in which:

The laws of physics don't apply;

There is magic, dragons, demons, immortal soldiers etc

Deities are empirical,objectively provable beings;

Is frankly laughable.

To look at *all of that, which is everywhere in AOS, all the time* but then to return the plausibility of history as soon as the issue of gender arises is, to put it mildly, a staggeringly selective and specific application of the "But history" theory.

Dragons yes. Not over represented.

orruks yes.  Not over represented.

snake ladies yes. Not over represented. 

walking trees yes. Not over represented. 

fish people yes. Not over represented.

Nurglings? No problem, not over represented.  

hold on, whats this?! Female Commanders?

Oh this won't do, not true to history! I do not wish to see this *over representation* in my game of Giant Leprous Santa Claus Demons and Rat armies. It shatters the "feeling of reality".

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nos said:

No they arent. 

History has *zero bearing* on AOS besides the fact that it is the only means by which we as humans can conceive of a plausible reality not entirely contemporary to our own. 

 

That's not true at all, AoS takes an enormous amount from historicals and historical combat and it's setting, like all fantasy borrows heavily from history. 

But that's sort of beside the point as I'm not suggesting historical reference points should preclude female miniatures, what I'm saying is the premise that the right level of representation should be 50-50 has no basis as it goes against all actual combat in history. That is to say, you can make it 50-50, but there's no particular reason it needs to be. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess a key question we have to ask ourselves is if we want to see things adapt at the game level or at the army level. 

 

Do we want to see armies like Daughters of Khaine; Orruks; Space Marines; Sisters of Battle etc... which have niches that they fit into. Or would we rather every army adapt to suit our desires. My view is that, through lore, we establish niches within the game at the game level by providing variation across a kaleidoscope of armies. Some might have 50-50 spreads of women and men; some might have no gender (Tyranids); some might be beyond even the notion of breeding and gender (Flesheaters - at least in physical form, their madness is another matter); some of which are bloodthirsty bloodsucking monsters; some who are noble, some who are demonic and depraved etc...

Richness can come from diversity within an army, but also from the game in general. 

 

I also touched on the fact that the lore isn't just a crutch, its a tool that can fill in the game in areas outside of combat. A good lore can fill in the story and the elements beyond the war; it can give us an idea of different social structures and setups that allows for things that might never be seen on the tabletop. GW has a powerful writing arm and can, if we keep buying and promoting their books, provide us more than just war. Settlements, nations, peoples, etc... My example above of Skaven touches on this; a female rising to power might never have a model, but through the story and lore can have an influence on the game. Perhaps not every warrior is a woman, but perhaps the ruler is perhaps that is the angle of inclusion rather than a warrior on the battlefield. 

As a wargame that focuses on models, of course our focus is on the battlefield and upon warrior models on that battlefield. 

Note yes I'm not just thinking of women - does every army need a dragon*; does every army need a mage or an archer?

 

 

 

 

 

As a moderator note, since there's a few posts above getting a little jumpy - lets all remember a few important things:

1) This is a hobby chat not a game design chat. What we debate here is purely an exchange of our viewpoints and opinions. By all means have passion, but don't drop to insults or disrespect. No one here has the strings to control GW, we aren't changing the game and there is no win/loss here. This is purely an exercise in exchanging ideas and viewpoints. 

2) Keep it cool. Passion is good - rage is bad. Remember sometimes the words we choose can take on a more hostile meaning. Keep calm, choose your words carefully to explain rather than "attack" or strike with a point.

I would like to formally say that its great we've got this discussion going for so long and in such a calm manner and I hope it can continue! Sadly its a discussion that often gets a bit out of hand in many communities. So lets make sure to set a great example and keep this one going! :)

 

 

*YES YES YES maybe?!

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're playing historical games now team, I'm throwing out my seraphon and stormcast and replacing them with the 1809 Austrian army. No historical inaccuracies or women in site! 

But honestly no one's advocating for a 50/50 gender split. Partly as some factions are not gendered but also because the way factions treat gender (and other social issues) is part of their lore and background. One of my favourite parts of AoS is the shades of grey within factions rather than just a basic good v evil. 

I learnt through this thread that skaven have a brood mother, one giant lady rat who births all the other and that's great, keep that, it's perfectly thematic and tells a great story and tells you a lot about skaven as a faction and as creatures. Having said that if someone comes up with a way to integrate female skaven in a way that makes the lore cooler than 1000% do it.  

On the flip side there are other factions with little female representation for no reason, where their absence is adding nothing to the world or lore. Ultimately though there are so many cool ways to add women units and lore in to flesh out the factions, that includes the way women are presented, are they not, are they objectified (e.g. Stormcast), are they an equal (elves), are they superior (DoK?) or something else entirely? 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mattrulesok said:

We're playing historical games now team, I'm throwing out my seraphon and stormcast and replacing them with the 1809 Austrian army. No historical inaccuracies or women in site! 

 

2 hours ago, Mattrulesok said:

The statistics demonstrate a far higher proportion of lizard leaders in AoS than pretty much any real army in history

I can hear people now getting ready to tell me "IT'S FANTASY" and yes it is but all fantasy has reference points in the real world. That's what gives fantasy a feeling of reality. All of our real world reference points for combat are human because almost all real world combat has been done by humans. Which is not to say that you can't have lizard combatants in a fantasy game, you can have as many as you like, it's only the idea that you must have more lizards that I take objection to, given that lizard combatants are actually grossly overrepesented in AoS rather than underrepresented. 

The other argument that's made here for increasing the over-representation of lizards is that some people need their gaming pieces to be the same species as them or they won't want to play with them. As a human playing a nearly all-lizard Seraphon army I can't say I've ever felt alienated and excluded by my gaming pieces not having enough hot blood and it's hard not to see this need as little more than reptileism. 

So yeah, more lizard models would be nice, more models are always nice, but the idea that it is some sort of fault or deficit of a game not to have parity doesn't make sense and the idea that creatures are being cruelly excluded by the species of their gaming pieces holds no weight for me. 

Stop trolling, act like you're an adult, and then we can have a meaningful discussion.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d be very pleased if all gender was erased from the lore and models for many of the factions.  Personally I find the issue distracting from the game and story.   If we replaced the pronouns in the stories would it make a difference?  What if they were all it instead of she or he?   Sounds good to me     

With  plenty of faction species we cannot discern gender anyways so who gives a ****** if we can tell what gender they are ‘supposed to be’ either visually (which makes no sense for these) or by description alone....trees, Fungus creatures, insectoids, Rock beings, daemons, rats, skeletons, dinosaurs.  

Does lack of mammalian ****** and long hair alone suggest maleness?   If a bear or Komodo dragon attacks me gender doesn’t matter   Only what spells and armor and weapons I have to smite them handily!

What I never want to see is arbitrary additions of human/aelvish female attributes to what should not have them for the sake of p.c. inclusionary pandering.   Those models will look stupid then.    

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My perspective on this topic is simply that diversity is amazing and something to be celebrated. GW has come leaps and bounds in helping make the hobby more inclusive for women through more model and lore representation in recent years, but I would also argue they can do so much more. Even if you discount ranges like Space Marines or Orks that are all-male (and to echo others, yes, Orks are coded male) the vast majority of miniatures are still male. Some might not see this as a problem and that's fine, but I think introducing more female representation through models especially can only be a good thing for many reasons, but particularly to make the hobby more inclusive for everyone and less male-centric. 

I also do honestly find it a bit problematic that two out of the only three female-centric factions in AoS (meaning a faction that has more explicitly female models than male models) are Daughters of Khaine and Slaanesh (the third is Sylvaneth) both of whom are mostly comprised of half-naked female/agender miniatures. Now, there's a lot of that on the male side too - just take a look at the Tzeentch Arcanites range - but generally they are complemented by plenty of male miniatures that cover up too. That's why, as much as I don't care for boob armour, I really appreciate the continued expansion on female Stormcasts. To kind of encapsulate how I feel about this particular issue, imagine that someone comes into a hobby shop, sees all the amazing miniatures and gets sold on the lore for AoS then asks if there's an army with strong rather than token female representation, it's disappointing to think that two of the three armies they would potentially be directed have (half) nakedness as a core design theme - and though the Sisters of Battle aren't half-naked, there's even less choice for female representation on the 40k side! It absolutely turns potential hobbyists away, and it's a real shame at that. Just for clarity, I've no inherent problem with nudity in miniatures, and am a collector of both the Khainite and Slaaneshi ranges; my problem stems from the strongest examples of representation GW has being easily dismissed as playing to the male gaze. 

Also, I just wanted to add as they've been discussed a fair amount and I think it's an interesting point; Daughters of Khaine aren't actually an all-female faction, just a matriarchal one where most of the miniatures are women and their lore focuses on women. Doomfire Warlocks and the new Khainite Warcry warband comprise the (slim) male model representation for the army, and they too generally expose a fair amount of skin. 

Edited by Jaskier
  • Like 9
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orsino said:

 

Stop trolling, act like you're an adult, and then we can have a meaningful discussion.

I'm not sure there's meaningful discussion to be had, all you appear to be interested in is shouting down anyone who would like to see better representation in our games of battle barbies.  Claiming that women are over represented due to historical inaccuracies but seemingly having no problem with any other historical inaccuracies like seraphon and skaven really makes it seem like the problem being presented is not one of historical accuracy but instead women. 

" As a male playing a nearly all-female CoS army I can't say I've ever felt alienated and excluded by my gaming pieces not having enough penises and it's hard not to see this need as little more than chauvinism." 

Wowza, and you asked me not to troll?  

AoS and the larger Wargaming community, as well as the majority of nerd culture  is predominantly male, we know this, however we are seeing more and more women joining these spaces largely in part to increases in representation and communities becoming more welcoming. Creating models that people of different backgrounds can identify with is one part of making a more open and inviting game /community, even if those players ultimately decide they would prefer a non representative team. 

The fact that you and I don't feel uncomfortable with an all women team and don't feel unrepresented in the game is because, as males, we have had constant representation in basically all spaces since we were children, we have massive amounts of representation in table top games, movies, video games, you name it! Frankly it has gotten to the point that I prefer playing as women in tt games and video games because I'm so bored of playing characters who look like me, I have so much representation in my life I'm actually bored of it, that is not a common occurrence for anyone but men, white men in particular. 

And ill finish by supplying an anecdotal counter point. My wife has always wanted to play Warhammer, she only just started this year at the age of 35. Her favourite model is Lady Olynder and that model is one of the biggest reasons she finally started. Just knowing that everything wasn't male and then seeing other women playing finally gave her the confidence to try. She now plays 2 teams, Nighthaunt and Deepkin, both armies have multiple female models and that was a consideration on her part. This is one story but you will find a lot more like it. 

Edited by Mattrulesok
  • Like 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Krungharr said:

I’d be very pleased if all gender was erased from the lore and models for many of the factions.  Personally I find the issue distracting from the game and story.   If we replaced the pronouns in the stories would it make a difference?  What if they were all it instead of she or he?   Sounds good to me     

With  plenty of faction species we cannot discern gender anyways so who gives a ****** if we can tell what gender they are ‘supposed to be’ either visually (which makes no sense for these) or by description alone....trees, Fungus creatures, insectoids, Rock beings, daemons, rats, skeletons, dinosaurs.  

Does lack of mammalian ****** and long hair alone suggest maleness?   If a bear or Komodo dragon attacks me gender doesn’t matter   Only what spells and armor and weapons I have to smite them handily!

What I never want to see is arbitrary additions of human/aelvish female attributes to what should not have them for the sake of p.c. inclusionary pandering.   Those models will look stupid then.    

Are you suggesting making everyone gender non-binary, or just removing gender as a concept from the setting? The former would actually do the opposite of helping push equal representation (and I say this as someone who privately identifies as non-binary) and the latter would accomplish nothing and make no sense given humans are a core foundation for the setting and gender is a core part of human identity.

And no offence, but the bit at the end of your post about "the sake of p.c. inclusionary pandering" is not at all conducive to this discussion about diversity and representation and frames your argument in a bad light. 

Edited by Jaskier
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Overread said:

Do we want to see armies like Daughters of Khaine; Orruks; Space Marines; Sisters of Battle etc... which have niches that they fit into. Or would we rather every army adapt to suit our desires. My view is that, through lore, we establish niches within the game at the game level by providing variation across a kaleidoscope of armies. Some might have 50-50 spreads of women and men; some might have no gender (Tyranids); some might be beyond even the notion of breeding and gender (Flesheaters - at least in physical form, their madness is another matter); some of which are bloodthirsty bloodsucking monsters; some who are noble, some who are demonic and depraved etc...

Richness can come from diversity within an army, but also from the game in general. 

 

I also touched on the fact that the lore isn't just a crutch, its a tool that can fill in the game in areas outside of combat. A good lore can fill in the story and the elements beyond the war; it can give us an idea of different social structures and setups that allows for things that might never be seen on the tabletop. GW has a powerful writing arm and can, if we keep buying and promoting their books, provide us more than just war. Settlements, nations, peoples, etc... My example above of Skaven touches on this; a female rising to power might never have a model, but through the story and lore can have an influence on the game. Perhaps not every warrior is a woman, but perhaps the ruler is perhaps that is the angle of inclusion rather than a warrior on the battlefield. 

As a wargame that focuses on models, of course our focus is on the battlefield and upon warrior models on that battlefield. 

Note yes I'm not just thinking of women - does every army need a dragon*; does every army need a mage or an archer?

From a player viewpoint, this, definitely this.

 

From GW viewpoint, well, I think if they consider female models will bring in more profit, then they will design more, if not then less.

At then end only profit matters, it’s capitalism after all, isn’t it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...